IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SCTP-over-UDP and port 9899

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 01 November 2011 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125271F0C6F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.671, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94a50eIe4JKG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D21211E80C7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA1IIEIP011046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EB037E6.6050809@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:18:14 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: SCTP-over-UDP and port 9899
References: <193601cc9809$2ffa6b50$8fef41f0$@com> <C2980D8C-6CBF-4077-985C-70F4BE09D7C0@fh-muenster.de> <1bbd01cc98ad$9099bb60$b1cd3220$@com> <FBB2B325-47B2-4EAF-AE52-5ED2233C1C57@fh-muenster.de> <1c0401cc98b9$e0bdab40$a23901c0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <1c0401cc98b9$e0bdab40$a23901c0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: 'Michael Tuexen' <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tsvwg@ietf.org, randall@lakerest.net
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:19:02 -0000

On 11/1/2011 10:15 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
...
>> I might not have made that
>> clear. So it different from SSH where the server binds to a
>> well known port (or not if otherwise negotiated), the client
>> uses an arbitrary one. Do you have a suggestion for the wording?
>
> Yes, remove the wording saying 9899 is the source port.

Agreed.

FWIW, 9899 is reserved in IANA, but IANA assigns only *destination* ports.

Source ports are not assigned. So just because a port is assigned does 
not mean it has any meaning solely as a source port. Source port meaning 
is based only on the socket-pair tuple (src addr, src port, dst addr, 
dst port).

Joe

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status